The State Of Rajasthan vs Lrs Of Indraj
2021 Latest Caselaw 12222 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10030/2021

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar (Revenue), Gharsana, District Sriganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Indraj S/o Jeetram, Through Legal Heirs-

1/1 Vidhya Devi W/o Indraj Ahir, Chak No.1 Jsm, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar.

1/2. Ramkumar S/o Indraj Ahir, Chak No.1 Jsm, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar.

1/3. Meera Yadav D/o Indraj Ahir, Chak No.1 Jsm, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar.

1/4. Meena D/o Indraj Ahir, Chak No.1 Jsm, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar.

1/5. Jaiprakash S/o Indraj Ahir, Chak No.1 Jsm, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar.

2. The Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Dinesh Kumar Joshi
For Respondent(s)          :



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                           Judgment / Order

05/08/2021

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-State being

aggrieved with the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Board of

Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (for short 'the Board of Revenue') in

revision petition No.3881/2009 whereby, while accepting the

revision filed by the respondents, the Board of Revenue has

ordered for closure of the proceedings initiated against them

under the provisions of Rule 22 (3) of the Rajasthan Colonization

(2 of 8) [CW-10030/2021]

(Sale And Allotment of Government Land In Indra Gandhi Canal

Area) Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules of 1975').

Brief facts of the case are that the predecessor of applicant

Indraj had applied for permanent allotment of land under the

provisions of Rules of 1975. The said application came to be

rejected by the allotting authority in the year 1975 on the ground

that the applicant was not bonafide resident of State of Rajasthan

prior to 1.4.1975. The applicant Indraj had preferred an appeal

before the appellate authority which came to be dismissed on

31.05.1976. Thereafter, again he preferred a revision petition

before the Board of Revenue which also came to be dismissed in

the year 1977. Then applicant Indraj had preferred a writ petition

before this Court, which was decided by this Court on 09.04.1979

with a direction to the allotment committee to decide his

application for allotment of land on merits.

Pursuant to the said judgment passed by this Court, the

claim of the applicant Indraj for permanent allotment of

agriculture land was again considered and it was declared that

applicant Indraj is entitled for allotment of 20.15 bighas of the

agriculture land.

It appears that despite the said decision of the allotment

committee dated 15.01.1982, he was allotted only 19 bighas of

un-command land. Applicant Indraj again approached the

allotment committee contending that he is entitled for 20.15

bighas of command land but only 19 bighas of un-command land

was allotted to him.

The allotment committee vide order dated 27.12.1986

ordered that applicant Indraj was found entitled for allotment of

20.15 bighas of command land but was allotted only 19 bighas of

(3 of 8) [CW-10030/2021]

un-command land, therefore, earlier allotment of 19 bighas of un-

command land was cancelled and he was allotted 24.10 bighas of

un-command land at another place. Pursuant to that order of

allottment committee, applicant Indraj was allotted 24.10 bighas

of un-command land in Murba No. 163/63 of Chak 1 JSM. It

appears that Indraj was handed over possession of the said land

and he started cultivation on the same land.

In the year 1999, i.e. after thirteen years, the colonization

authorities moved an application before the District Collector,

Sriganganagar under Rule 22 (3) of the Rules of 1975 alleging

that though applicant Indraj was entitled for 20.15 bighas of land

but he was allotted 24.10 bighas and, as such, 3.15 bighas of

excess land was allotted to him, therefore, the said allotment of

excess land be cancelled.

The District Collector, Sri Ganganagar vide order dated

27.05.2002 allowed the said application and ordered for

resumption of 3.15 of bighas of land from applicant Indraj.

Being aggrieved with the order dated 27.05.2002, applicant

Indraj had filed a review application before the District Collector,

however, the same was rejected by the District Collector vide

order dated 16.02.2009, against which, a revision petition was

preferred before the Board of Revenue in the year 2009 itself,

which came to be decided by the Board of Revenue vide impugned

order dated 29.08.2019.

While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned

counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the Rules of

1975, a landless agriculturalist is entitled for permanent allotment

of 25 bighas of land and as applicant Indraj was already holding

4.05 bighas of land, he was found suitable for allotment of 20.10

(4 of 8) [CW-10030/2021]

bighas of land, however, due to inadvertence, instead of 20.10

bighas of agricultural land, he was allotted 24.10 bighas of land

vide allotment order dated 27.12.1986. It is submitted that when

the said fact was pointed out to the District Collector, it had rightly

passed the order for resumption of excess land allotted to

applicant Indraj vide order dated 27.05.2002 and thereafter,

rightly dismissed the review application filed on behalf of Indraj.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Board of

Revenue without taking into consideration this aspect of the

matter that excess land was allotted to applicant Indraj, has

illegally passed the impugned order dated 29.8.2019. It is, thus,

prayed that this writ petition may be accepted and the impugned

order dated 29.08.2019 may kindly be set aside.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

material available on record.

The peculiar facts of this case reflect the state of affairs that

how the State authorities are dealing with the poor agriculturists.

Applicant Indraj filed an application way back in the year 1975 for

permanent allotment of agricultural land under the Rules of 1975.

The said application was rejected by the authorities concerned in

the year, 1975 itself, then he was forced to approach up to this

Court and ultimately in the year 1979, this Court granted relief to

applicant Indraj. Thereafter, the authorities concerned took three

years in deciding the claim of applicant Indraj for permanent

allotment of agriculture land and at that point also, less land was

allotted to him. Again the poor agriculturist was forced to

approach the authorities concerned and they took four years to

order for allotment of land, for which, applicant Indraj was entitled

to.

(5 of 8) [CW-10030/2021]

It is also to be noticed that the said land was not allotted to

applicant Indraj free of cost, but he was required to pay for the

same as per the Rules of 1975. After thirteen years of the

allotment of the land to applicant Indraj, one fine morning, the

colonization department had realized that 4.10 bighas of the

excess land was allotted to applicant Indraj thirteen years before

and then they moved an application before the District Collector

for resumption of the excess allotted land. It took three years to

the District Collector to decide that the applicant Inderaj was

allotted 3.15 bighas of excess land way back in the year 1986 and

this land should be resumed.

Again the applicant was forced to file a review application

before the District Collector, who took seven years to reject the

said review application. The poor agriculturalist was forced to

approach the Board of Revenue in the year, 2009 itself and now

the matter has been decided by the Board of Revenue after a

period of ten years i.e. in the year, 2019. The facts narrated

above are more than enough to reflect on the situation of the poor

agriculturalists and the sentiments of the authorities concerned

towards them.

The Board of Revenue has taken into consideration the fact

that out of 24.10 bighas of un-command land allotted to the

applicant Indraj, 4 bighas of the land was acquired for the purpose

of construction of road and water channel and no compensation

for that has been paid to the applicant Indraj and this fact has not

been disputed by the State.

It is argued before the Board of Revenue that as per the

allotment order dated 27.12.1986, the applicant was declared

entitled for allotment of 20.10 bighas of command land but he was

(6 of 8) [CW-10030/2021]

allotted 24.10 bighas of un-command land and in such

circumstances, it cannot be said that any excess land was allotted

to the applicant Indraj, however, the said contention has not been

dealt with by the Board of Revenue but in the opinion of this Court

the said contention of the applicant Inderaj was having force and

was required to be considered by the Board of Revenue.

Be that as it may, the Board of Revenue has allowed the

appeal preferred on behalf of the applicant Indraj on the ground

that 4 bighas of land out of the 24.10 bighas of land was already

acquired for the purpose of construction of road and water

channels and as such no case of excess allotment is made out.

The Board of Revenue has also observed that the allotment in

question is thirty three years old and in view of the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Brijlal Vs. Board of

Revenue & Ors reported in AIR 1994 SC 1128, the allotment

made in favour of the applicant Indraj for alleged excess land way

back in the year 1986 is not liable to be cancelled.

Learned counsel for the State has argued that only 1 bigha

of the land was acquired for the purpose of construction of road

and water channel instead of 4 bighas as observed by the Board of

Revenue. May be, only 1 bigha of land out of the allotted 24.10

bighas of land was acquired for the purpose of construction of

road and water channel then also the fact remains that the

applicant Indraj was entitled for allotment of 20.10 bighas of

command land instead he was allotted 24.10 bighas of un-

command land and that is sufficient to hold that the allotment of

24.10 bighas of un-command land to the applicant Indraj cannot

be said to be illegal in any manner.

(7 of 8) [CW-10030/2021]

Apart from that, even it is not a case of the State that the

applicant Indraj had procured the allotment of 24.10 bighas of

land or excess of 4 bighas of the land by making any

misrepresentation before the colonization authorities.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brijlal's case (supra) while

dealing with the case wherein, the authorities have cancelled the

allotment of a person on the ground that at the time of allotment

of land, the person was minor and thereafter the permanent

allotment made in his favour on the basis of the temporary

allotment was illegal, has held that there was no iota of evidence

on the record to show that at the time of temporary allotment of

land, the said person was minor and the authorities have also

failed to show that the person has misrepresented regarding his

age at the time of allotment and there was no basis for the

allotment authorities to reach findings that the person was minor

at the time of temporary allotment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

has further observed that the person is in culitvatory possession of

the land since 1970 and it would be travesty of justice to

dispossess him from the land which he is nourishing for over a

period of two decades.

In this case also, the allotment was made way back in the

year, 1986 and now after thirty five years, the respondent State is

bent upon to cancel the allotment of the applicant Indraj to the

extent of 4 bighas.

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstance

of the case, I do not find any case for interference in this writ

petition, hence this writ petition is dismissed.

However, taking into consideration the attitude of the State

authorities towards the poor agriculturalist and his family, who

(8 of 8) [CW-10030/2021]

have been dragged to litigation from last around 35 years, I deem

it appropriate to levy a cost upon the State. Hence, the State is

directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the State

Legal Service Authority at Jodhpur within a period of one month

from today as it is noticed that over the time, the applicant Indraj

had already sold his 20.10 bighas of land to some other persons,

hence it would not be appropriate to award the cost in favour of

his legal representatives.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

Surabhii/42-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)